WI No Horses - Stalin dies in '45?

This is one that has been bubbling around in my head for a little bit, but have neither the time nor resources to explore properly really.

One of the minor stories surrounding the Moscow Victory parade was that the original plan was that Stalin was to lead the Parade upon a white horse, however during a rehearsal, Stalin was thrown by the horse, injuring his shoulder and head. So Zhukov was told to lead the parade on horseback, (the same horse, I suspect Stalin was hoping that the horse would throw Zhukov too).

However, my thought, say Stalin falls more awkwardly, less on his shoulder and more on his head and dies, either instantly or after a period in a coma.

Who takes up the leadership of the USSR? How does the USSR evolve and does this butterfly the Cold War?

And is Beria's life expectancy measured in months, weeks, days or minutes? :D
 
Zhdanov is the most likely candidate to succeed Stalin, although some form of collective leadership will probably form and Zhdanov will die within a few years from alcoholism. At that point Molotov will probably assume power, and Beria is probably executed somewhere along the way (everyone hated and feared him).

A Molotov led USSR will be far more hostile to the West than under Khrushchev, and far more repressive. There would be no destalinization, although the excesses of the Stalin years would be scaled back (however there may be small scale purges since Molotov, like Stalin, was very paranoid).
 
God you just made Stalin a martyr dying on a white horse during victory parade ..

Once the shock wore off .. Zhukov .. Malenkov .. Khrushchev .. ( though not sure he was as strong at that point) I would say Malenkov .. Beria .. He goes into retirement pretty quick.. Weeks .. 1945 is different than 1954 though...

Soviets just vanquished nazi Germans .. Stalin while not winning most likable contests was revered amongst the population as a whole due to all the factors we know and have discussed into oblivion .. So it would be like fdr passing ..

Personally I would hope for malenkov
Funny thing is how would this effect Asia post death.. Do the soviets still declare war on Japan.. Can more cooperation be had between east and west or do penis power flag waving victors disease still devolve into the Cold War?
 
Zhdanov is the most likely candidate to succeed Stalin, although some form of collective leadership will probably form and Zhdanov will die within a few years from alcoholism. At that point Molotov will probably assume power, and Beria is probably executed somewhere along the way (everyone hated and feared him).

A Molotov led USSR will be far more hostile to the West than under Khrushchev, and far more repressive. There would be no destalinization, although the excesses of the Stalin years would be scaled back (however there may be small scale purges since Molotov, like Stalin, was very paranoid).

I was going to mention zhdanov .. However I think he will have an accident ..
He would also be a bad choice historically as the man was not playing with a full deck by 1945 ... I agree Beria has the socialist retirement package
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Funny thing is how would this effect Asia post death.. Do the soviets still declare war on Japan..

Yes- I presume this was a VE Day parade, not a VJ Day parade.

So, interesting question.

It seems to me to be one of the most plausible PoDs for avoiding Japanese participation in the Pacific War, without altering the European war.

It's by no means guaranteed. Stalin's successors probably have an appreciation of the geopolitical advantages of getting involved in the Pacific War, and many of them may remember the Russo-Japanese War and may have some vestigial instinct to prove superiority of Sovietism to Tsarism and Russia to Japan by thrashing Japan.

However, I could also see the successors feel overwhelmed with the challenges of reconstruction and demobilization and political succession. And I could see them thinking that starting a war of choice, rather than necessity might be unpopular and not worth it even with the prospect of geopolitical gain.

Stalin pandering to public opinion like that is quite a bit harder to believe.

Can more cooperation be had between east and west or do penis power flag waving victors disease still devolve into the Cold War?

Good question - it comes down to whether we or not we can legitimately see the behavior of OTL's post-Stalin collective leadership at the end of the Korean War as a useful analogy for what a post-Stalin collective leadership would have done right after the conclusion of the Great Patriotic War.

If the answer is yes, then I would expect more caution in Soviet foreign policy (it was quite cautious in OTL 1953-1955), leading to probable lack of Iranian and Turkish crises in 1946 along with possible nonparticipation in the Pacific War and an unwillingness to throw down a challenge like the Berlin Blockade.

So all in all, at least a slowing down of the Cold War, maybe with tensions rising as a clearer leader of the pack emerges from the collective leadership (it's kind of what happened with Khrushchev) and the Soviets get the bomb.
 
Yes- I presume this was a VE Day parade, not a VJ Day parade.

It was.

So, interesting question.

It seems to me to be one of the most plausible PoDs for avoiding Japanese participation in the Pacific War, without altering the European war.
I don't buy that for a second. Both the advantages, Japan's weakness, and both the Soviets and WAllies strength are too obvious. Stalin's inner circle were fully kept informed on the plans for striking Japan, on all the intelligence estimates, on all the risks vs the rewards (which meant they knew that it was a whole lotta reward without any risk) and on the deals brokered with the Americans over it. With all that in mind it's really impossible to see them not ultimately acting the same way Stalin did IOTL.

However, I could also see the successors feel overwhelmed with the challenges of reconstruction and demobilization and political succession. And I could see them thinking that starting a war of choice, rather than necessity might be unpopular and not worth it even with the prospect of geopolitical gain.

Stalin pandering to public opinion like that is quite a bit harder to believe.
Popularity doesn't ever enter into it. The almost-orwellian nature of mid-1940s USSR meant the popular opinion was pretty much whatever the Party said it was.
 
Top